{"id":316571,"date":"2024-08-03T11:04:48","date_gmt":"2024-08-03T16:04:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=316571"},"modified":"2024-08-14T19:09:24","modified_gmt":"2024-08-15T00:09:24","slug":"arizona-unborn-human-being-ballot-pamphlet","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/arizona-unborn-human-being-ballot-pamphlet\/","title":{"rendered":"Arizona judge strikes ‘unborn human being’ from abortion ballot pamphlet"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

UPDATE, 8\/14\/24:<\/strong> The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled<\/a> that the informational pamphlet on a proposed pro-abortion amendment to the state Constitution can refer to a preborn baby as an “unborn human being.” However, the actual language on the ballot will remain unchanged, continuing to use the term “fetus.”<\/p>\n

8\/3\/24:<\/strong> An informational voter pamphlet about the ballot initiative to expand abortion in Arizona will not use the phrase “unborn human being” after a judge rejected<\/a> the language put forth by Republican lawmakers, deeming it too partisan and emotional. The case is now headed to the state Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Christopher Whitten asked that the pamphlet about the initiative, which seeks to expand abortion access from 15 weeks to 24 weeks, use more “neutral” language. Children born as young as 21 weeks have survived.<\/p>\n

Earlier this year, Arizona for Abortion Access \u2014 a coalition of pro-abortion groups, including the ACLU of Arizona and Planned Parenthood of Arizona \u2014 announced<\/a> that they had gathered enough signatures to put a pro-abortion measure on the ballot in November. If passed, the initiative would create a \u201cfundamental right\u201d in the state constitution to intentionally kill preborn children up to so-called viability, an arbitrary pregnancy marker since children are surviving at increasingly premature ages and are completely viable when left in the natural habitat of the womb.<\/p>\n

Abortion would also be permitted for the remainder of pregnancy up to 40 weeks under exceptions for “the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual,” which is so broad that it allows abortion for virtually any reason.<\/p>\n

READ: Iowa\u2019s \u2018heartbeat law\u2019 is in effect, protecting most preborn children from abortion at 6 weeks<\/em><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Opponents of the measure have argued that the \u2018mental health\u2019 exception could make it easy to kill a preborn child at any point in pregnancy based on how the mother is feeling<\/em>, including if she is suffering from emotional stress, financial stress, or familial stress. This broad exception existed<\/a> under Roe v. Wade<\/em>‘s\u00a0partner decision, Doe v. Bolton<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Republican lawmakers in Arizona issued the proposed language for the pamphlet that included the phrase “unborn human being,” which quickly led to a lawsuit<\/a> from the abortion coalition. It claimed the word “fetus” should be used instead, and that “unborn human being” is too politically charged.<\/p>\n

\u201cArizona voters have a right to clear, accurate and impartial information from the state before they are asked to vote on ballot initiatives,\u201d the pro-abortion group said in a statement. \u201cThe decision of the Arizona Legislative Council fails to abide by that responsibility by rejecting the request to use the neutral, medical term \u2018fetus\u2019 in place of \u2018unborn human being\u2019 in the 2024 General Election Publicity Pamphlet.\u201d<\/p>\n

The judge agreed<\/a>, ruling that the phrase is \u201cpacked with emotion and partisan meaning\u201d \u2014 because it rightly identifies the humanity of the child in the womb \u2014 and that it needs to be rewritten with more \u201cneutral\u201d language.<\/p>\n

\u00a0